VincentRJ

Is it possibly a battery-operated car? Spontaneous combustion is a problem with electric Vehicles.

I agree that it is a beautiful circuit, but the highest point is 5,416 metres at the Thorong-La pass. This could be a problem for those who have not adapted to such heights, and/or those who have certain medical problems and are not fit. Attached are a few more images I took of the area surrounding Thorong-La. After a snow fall, it looks as though the track could disappear.

I've trekked in Nepal several times during my life. The first time was in 1964 and the last time was in 2013 when I trekked the Annapurna circuit, reaching a height of 5,416 metres. To avoid altitude sickness, if one is not used to great heights, one should approach the high points very gradually to give time for the body to adjust. The problem is that most people pay for a fixed schedule where everything is pre-organized, whereas I demand control overe 'where I will stay' and 'how long'. Sometimes the guides are not happy with this. Too bad! At, say, 2,000 metres, I find a hotel with a nice view, and stay a couple of nights or more, wandering around during the daytime taking photos of the village life. At, say, 3 to 4,000 metres, I'll spend another 2 or 3 days at a nice location, to get used to the height and explore the surroundings. Then when I reach 5 to 6,000 metres, I experience no altitude problems. Attached are 3 images I took in 2013 at the Thorong La Pass, which is at a height of 5,416.

Perhaps some of them are depressed because of the devastating consequences of human-caused climate change which is continuouslys promoted in the media. They have no hope for the future.

There is, of course, another Buddhist 'Sect', in Thailand, which addresses this problem of significant monetary donations to temple organizations, which seems against basic Buddhist principles. It's called Santi Asoke. The following article provides lots of details. https://www.asoke.info/bunniyom/insight-santi_mobi2.html "Going back to Buddha's fundamental teachings, Santi Asoke counters the mainstream materialism and consumerism and has set up an "utopian Buddhist society" in Nakhon Pathom where members live, work, and produce food on the basis of communal harmony. Apart from its model Buddhist villages, Santi Asoke members - predominantly professionals, middle class, to lower middle class - have also set up a model grocery store and herbal product business based on their intention to help consumers rather than make profits. The Santi Asoke projects have drawn much attention and admiration from academics for their projection of an alternative lifestyle according to Buddhist beliefs vis-a-vis Western-style consumerism, so much so that they are willing to dismiss his antagonistic approach."

It woukld take a long time to respond to every point you make, so I'll just begin with the distinction between objective realty and subjective reality, as I understand it, of course. Objective reality is a reality that applies to all people of all cultures, regardless of their differences. For example, if anyone were to kick a hard brick wall with his or her bare foot, with the same force that a footballer kicks a ball to score a goal, then the person will damge his foot, no exceptions. The extent of the damage, and how many toes are broken, will depend on many factors, such as the angle of the kick onto the brick wall, the force of the kick, and the physical strength of the person's foot. The subjective reality is the amount of pain and emotional stress that such a person would experience. If the person's leg were injected with a local anaesthetic, prior to the experiment, he/she would probably feel no pain at all. That's also an objective reality. However, in the absence of anaesthetcs or pain killers, the amount of pain suffered would vary subjectively. Some people would howl and cry and groan, whilst others would take it more calmly. A well-trained Buddhist monk who had succeeded in controling his emotions and thoughts, would probably feel just a basic pain that tells him something is wrong with his foot. Pain is a natural messenger from the body, which tells one that something is wrong and needs fixing. Another obvious example of the difference between subjective and objective reality, is the taste of food. Any plate of food can be successfully examined, through scientific analysis, to document all the various chemicals in the food, which is also objective reality. But that analysis cannot predict whether everyone will enjoy the food, but it can predict that anyone eating the food will die if the food contains a deadly poison. Enjoyment of the taste of a particular type of food is subjective and depends mostly one one's cultural background. However, modern science has the capability to detect such enjoyment through fMRI scans of the brain. In other words, if a person were to eat a plate of food whilst undergoing an fMRI scan, and for some reason lied that he liked the food, when asked, the fMRI scan would show that the person was lying. Here's an interesting article explaining the reward processes in the brain. "When exposed to a stimulus which is rewarding, the brain responds by releasing an increased amount of dopamine, the main neurotransmitter associated with rewards and pleasure. Dopamine is mostly produced in an area of the brain called the ventral tegmental area (VTA), located within the midbrain." https://www.simplypsychology.org/brain-reward-system.html#:~:text=When exposed to a stimulus,)%2C located within the midbrain

I can't remember reading it, probably because your posts are so long. I can't think of any example where the 'methodology of science' has failed, but there are numerous examples where the 'methodology of science' has not been applied with sufficient rigour, and numerous examples where erroneous assumptions have been made due to insufficient data and evidence, and/or incorrect interpretation of the data. For example, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity implied that the universe should be in a state of collapse, as each body exterts an attractive force on every other body (star and planet). At that time, however, there was no evidence that the universe was either expanding or contracting, so an assuption was made that the stars in the universe were static, and that God was keeping them static, against the laws of gravity. In those days the only observed galaxy was the Milky Way. When Edwin Hubble, using more powerful telescopes, discovered there were other galaxies in the universe and observed, due to the doppler effect (redshift), that the farther apart galaxies are from each other, the faster they move away from each other, it became apparet that the universe is expanding. It is the application of the 'methodology of science', in conjunction with new and more sophisticated tools and devices, which allows the discovery of errors that are frequently made during scientific enquiry. Got it? ????

One thing about which the IPCC is confident, is that warming will increase rainfall, globally. This should make sense to most people who have only a basic understanding of science. A warmer climate causes more evaporation of the oceans and lakes. The evaporated water does not leave the atmosphere to outer space. It comes back as rain. However, whilst some areas might get wetter, other areas might get drier. Changes in climate are not uniform over the entire planet. Fortunately, we have the technology to distribute the water from where the rain falls in excess, to where it doesn't fall, by building dams and long-distance water pipes. Increased rain and increased atmospheric CO2, plus a warmer climate, are all excellent for increased plant growth. On the issue of over-population, a friend who was an architect made the comment, a few years ago, that the entire world population, then around 7 billion, could be accommodated on an area of land the size of Tasmania. I thought at the time that was rather fanciful, so I did some calculations. The area of Tasmania is 68,403 square Km. One square Km is one million square metres, so 68.4 thousand square km translates to 68.4 billion square metres. Using a figure of 8 billion for the current population would mean that each person on the planet, (man, woman and child) would be allocated a space of 8.55 square metres at ground level. That's the size of a very small bedroom. A reasonable living area would be, say, 6x that area, which is around 50 square metres. That means a family of four would have more than 200 sqare metres of living area, which is equivalent to a large house. To achieve that allocation would require 6 storey buildings covering the entire area of Tasmania, but that excludes walls and roads, and many other requirements. To create space for these other requirements, one would have to increase the number of storeys. To create room for all the walls, corridors and lifts within each building, the height would be raised to, say, 7 storeys. But of course, one needs a lot of areas for roads, and also parks and recreational areas, otherwise living there would be awful. Thankfully, as a result of modern science and technology we can build 100 storey buildings. If we multiply the 7 storeys by 8, we get 56 storeys. In other words, the total area covered by buildings is just 1/8th of the area of Tasmania if all the buildings are 56 storeys. That leaves plenty of room for roads and parks. However, we still need to create room for shops, supermarkets, warehouses, maintenance areas, manufacturing areas, offices, and so on, so let's add another 10 storeys. We now have 65 storey buildings covering 1/8th of the area of Tasmania, all connected with roads which occupy, say, another 1/8th of the total area of Tasmania. That leaves 3/4ths of the total area for parks and forests. I'd say that any city which allocates 3/4ths of its area to parks and nature is acceptable. I should also add that I'm talking about the application of modern technology. All these skyscrapers would be located in different areas which are interconnected with sophisticaed railway networks. Wherever you live, you could travel quickly to any destination by taking the lift, and/or escalator, to the nearest railway station. Personal cars and electric vehicles would be obsolete in this situation. Also, in this situation where 8 billion people live in an area the size of Tasmania, there would probably be another 8 billion people, or more, living in the rest of the world, who are producing most of the food and various other products. The energy supplies for this vision of the future would have to come from nuclear power. Solar power and wind would not pass muster. ????

This illustrates the point I've been trying to make, and is why I introduced the issue of 'Climate Change' many pages ago in this thread. Most people don't have the ability or interest to do their own research on the internet and check the actual data. They prefer to watch the news on the TV or their iPhone, and accept what they are told, just like those who subscribe to a particular religion tend to accept the authority of the priests. The so-called great authority on the climate issue is the IPCC which has stated in the past that climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic system and that accurate predictions of future climate are impossible (or at least very challenging). In order to save face, as a result of past, inaccurate predictions, they now use the word 'projection', but such projections still rely upon computer models which cannot take into consideration all of the influences on climate, because all the influences are not known and even those that are known cannot be accurately quantified. The problem is, societies in general do not want uncertainty, and politicians cannot motivate the population to follow an agenda which involves the investment of huge amounts of money, if the true degree of scientific uncertainty is expressed, which is why, of course, every extreme weather event is used by the Mainstream Media (MSM) as a confirmation of human-caused climate change. The distinction between weather and climate is so often confused. How often have you heard the claim in the media that an extreme weather event was caused by 'climate change'? Climate is not a cause, but a result of numerous causes. However, what can be claimed with a high degree of scientific certainty, is that mankind's total effect on the environment, including deforestation, the creation of massive 'concrete jungles' (cities and roads), pollution due to the release of toxic chemicals and massive amounts of plastic garbage which is not recycled, and so on, must have at least some effect on our climate. Precisely quantifying that effect is an impossible task, so demonizing our CO2 emissions is the political solution, because all fossil fuels emit CO2 which is very expensive to sequester in the ground.

I get the impression that you don't really understand the 'methodology of science'. 'Science' is never settled. There's always some degree of uncertainty, however small that uncertainty is. If a scientist were to spend his entire career studying 'evolution' and discovered that the theory was based on false premises, then he would probably become as famous as Charles Darwin, and would probably be nominated for a Nobel prize, provided, of course that he was able to demonstrate, in accordance with the Methodology of Science, that the premises were false. A very important part of the Methodology of Science, is the process of Falsification, that is, devising an experiment that shows that a particular theory is false. A very basic example of this process of 'Falsification', is the Galileo experiment which falsified the Aristotelian concept that heavy objects seek their natural place faster than light ones, ie., that heavy objects fall faster. Gilileo supposedly dropped, at the same time, two iron balls of significantly different weights, from the leaning Tower of Pisa, and found they both hit the ground at approximately the same time. Of course, there was a slight difference due to the air resistance. A feather would fall at a much slower rate. However, astronaut David Scott performed a version of the experiment on the Moon during the Apollo 15 mission in 1971, dropping a feather and a hammer from his hands. Because of the negligible lunar atmosphere, there was no drag on the feather, which hit the ground at the same time as the hammer. Although the Galileo experiment was very simple, Aristotle apparently never did it. Aristotle’s fame was such that no one seriously challenged his assertions for over 2,000 years. Galileo’s experiment shows us the utility of gathering accurate observational data and comparing it to the predictions of scientific models. This is the very mechanism through which science corrects its own errors. Unfortunately, appeal to authority and apparent scientific consensus on an issue, is quite common. Scientists can also be flawed human beings, just like politicians, journalists, plumbers, electricians, and so on, and some are willing to remain silent on any doubts they have if the expression of such doubts would annoy their bosses and damage their career.

It seems clear to me that I answered the question. I think your confusion is a result of your being trapped into the 'either/or' situation. That is, something's either right or wrong, good or bad, hot or cold, and so on. You can create your own reality to some extent, and that extent is very variable, depending upon your inheritance characteristics and the many experiences in your mother's womb and in early childhood which you can't remember. Such experiences are buried in the subconscious, which means you have no control over them, unless you specifically engage in certain processes that might help you to understand or be aware of at least some of those subconscious influences. Psychology and Psychiatry deal with such issues, but also Buddhism and Yoga-type practices. "As to your statement, which is a belief, knowing what I know it's false. We do choose to enter this earthly existence. In fact, the entity to be chooses it's parents and the parents choose this soon to be born entity." I'm sorry.This sounds like complete nonsense to me. The entity to be, chooses it's parents, and the parents choose the characteristics of the 'soon to be born entity'?? Crikey!! I didn't realize you were into so much mumbo jumbo. ???? However, I apologize if I've offended you.

Well, thanks for admitting your ambiguity, but I still think you're muddling things up. For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else. After the fetus in the mother's womb has developed to a certain stage, it begins to experience certain effects associated with the feelings and experiences of the mother. For example, if the mother likes listening to the music of Mozart, the baby in the womb, after it has developed its hearing capacity, will be able to hear the music and experience, in some way, the mother's joy which is associated with the music. After the baby is born, the young child will also show pleasure whenever the music of Mozart is played. Scientific studies have confirmed this. However, if the reverse were to occur, and the mother were to experience anger and displeasure when hearing a particular type of music, then these reactions would also be felt by the unborn infant in the womb, and the young child after birth would most likely show displeasure whenever that music is played. There are many other experiences that occur in the early stages of life, which become embedded in our subconscious, and which influence our behaviour and choices in life. If these 'unknown influences' become a major problem, then the scientific disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry might help. Another common example is a phobia of snakes and spiders. Do people create their own phobias, or are they just embedded in the subconscious? The following study provides some evidence that such phobias are inherited. https://www.cbs.mpg.de/Fear-of-spiders-and-snakes-is-deeply-embedded-in-us "Snakes and spiders evoke fear and disgust in many people. Even in developed countries lots of people are frightened of these animals although hardly anybody comes into contact with them. Until now, there has been debate about whether this aversion is innate or learnt. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (MPI CBS) in Leipzig and the Uppsala University have recently discovered that it is hereditary: Babies as young as six months old feel stressed when seeing these creatures—long before they could have learnt this reaction." In summary, I would say that we can create our own realty to the extent that we can control our own thoughts, ideas, emotions, and motivations. However, most people can't even control their own weight because they are addicted to tasty and sugary foods. ????

Your question is not clear. What do you mean by "proving everything in existence"? Do you mean "observing or detecting everything in existence"? Science is a process that involves observation and experimentation. Scientific theories and hypotheses are based upon obervations and experimentation. When there's a lack of sufficient observation, for whatever reason, and/or a difficulty to conduct experimentation because of the complexity of the situation and/or the long time scales involved, then uncertainty prevails. The complexity of the universe as a whole is enormous. So far, the total sum of scientific knowledge cannot even tell us how many different species of life-forms exist on our planet. There is a general estimate of 8.7 million, but such an estimate probably doesn't include all insects and the millions of different microbes, bacteria and parasites. The following article addresses the problem. "Part of the problem is that we cannot simply count the number of life forms. Many live in inaccessible habitats (such as the deep sea), are too small to see, are hard to find, or live inside other living things. So, instead of counting, scientists try to estimate the total number of species by looking for patterns in biodiversity. But most estimates of global biodiversity overlook microorganisms such as bacteria because many of these organisms can only be identified to species level by sequencing their DNA. After compiling and analysing a database of DNA sequences from 5 million microbe species from 35,000 sites around the world, researchers concluded that there are a staggering 1 trillion species on Earth. That’s more species than the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy." https://theconversation.com/how-many-species-on-earth-why-thats-a-simple-question-but-hard-to-answer-114909 To rephrase your question. Are human beings able to observe or detect everything in the entire universe using the Methodology of Science? That would take an awful long time. ????

Here's an interesting quote from that famous Physicist, Richard Feynman, which also describes my situation quite well. "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.” —Richard Feynman (1981)

On the contrary, it's the people who believe that 'God createrd the universe', who don't have a clue. The explanation that there is a Creator God or an Intelligent Designer, is a cop out. Scientific inquiry begines with a clue, that is, at least some evidence that supports a 'hypothesis' or a rational explanation which is related to the clues. After continuing investigation and experimentation, the hypothesis will most likely be either debunked or confirmed to some degree, eventually. However, certain hypotheses, such as the origins of the first forms of life, are extremely difficult to confirm because of the complexity of the environment and the huge time-scales involved, such as millions of years of constantly changing conditions within huge volumes of soupy seas. Nevertheless, despite the enormous difficulties, scientists continue to investigate the issue. Below is an interesting, recent hypothesis from a brilliant, young scientist. "From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life." https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

You are quite right to disbelieve that something can be created from nothing. 'Nothing', using a literal definition, cannot possibly exist. The singularity of the Big Bang is not described as 'nothing'. It's an infinitely dense and hot quantity of matter compressed into a very tiny area. In ordinary language, we tend to use words sloppily, from the scientific perspective. We walk into a room and declare 'it's empty'. From the scientific perspective, it's definitely not empty. It's full of trillions and gazillions of air molecules and photons of various wave lengths. We tend to think that a 'vacuum' might be an example of empty space, because we've removed all the air molecules. But that's not true. A vacuum is bustling with many sorts of particles and waves that science is continuing to discover. The following article migh provide some insights for you. https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/what-keeps-space-empty/#:~:text=Space is not empty.,and neutrinos from nuclear reactions. "Space is not empty. A point in outer space is filled with gas, dust, a wind of charged particles from the stars, light from stars, cosmic rays, radiation left over from the Big Bang, gravity, electric and magnetic fields, and neutrinos from nuclear reactions. Even a "perfect" vacuum would still hold vacuum energy, the Higgs field, and spacetime curvature. Space seems empty to humans because we can't see most of the stuff there, and because there is much less air than we are used to."

I think a major problem with modern society is that most people live in cities, or concrete jungles, isolated from nature. This is not a natural situation. I live in a rural (or semi-rural) area), and whenever I have to drive into the nearest city and experience the sudden increase in traffic congestion and noise, I feel awful. What the heck am I doing here?? Living in natural surroundings, and engaging directly with nature, feels so much better for me.

Thanks for the link to the article by William A. Wilson. That's an interesting read. He highlights some very significant issues and problems within the various organizations of scientific inquiry. However, it would be a mistake to smear and cast doubt on the true and ideal 'methodology' of science just because of certain human failings which don't measure up to those ideal standards of the Methodology of Science. To quote from the article: "The best scientists know that they must practice a sort of mortification of the ego and cultivate a dispassion that allows them to report their findings, even when those findings might mean the dashing of hopes, the drying up of financial resources, and the loss of professional prestige." People, including scientists, have careers, families to support, mortgages to pay off, and most people have a lust for some degree of power and fame to satisfy their ego and vanity. This is the problem. Attacking 'science' is not addressing the problem. Whilst it might be shocking to read in the article that as many as 65% of published studies in Psychology showed positive results which could not later be replicated, it was the application of the 'methodology of science' which revealed that those 65% of published studies were at least questionable, if not false. Also, research in the 'soft sciences', such as psychology, sociology, medical research, and 'climate change', is very challenging, and sometimes impossible to verify because of the numerous interacting forces which cannot always be identified and controlled during experimentation. Ideally, this lack of certainty should always be revealed, and it often is in the scientific papers, but revealing such uncertainty to the public can sometimes have undesirable effects, such as reducing the 'placebo' effect which is important during medical treatment. The 'cult' of science is another important issue, that should not be confused with 'true' science. To quote from the article: "The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. The greatest friends of the Cult of Science are the worst enemies of science’s actual practice." In my opinion, the 'Climate Change' issue is an excellent example of this 'cult', where a 97% consensus is concocted, for political purposes, and a simple solution offered to make the climate benign and reduce the occurrence of extreme weather events. Stop burning fossil fuels and reduce our CO2 emissions. What could be simpler? ???? In summary, the discovery and development of the 'Methodology of Science' has been the greatest boon to humanity since the beginning of civilization. Whilst there are many places in the world where people are suffering from disasters, conflicts, famines, diseases, extreme poverty, and so on, these problems are mainly due to the lack of the application of science, as well as the corruption and incompetence of those in power. Those who are in denial about the over-all benefits of science like to give examples of the devastation cause by modern wars using sophisticated weapons based upon scientific discoveries, such as the atomic bombs that ended the war in Japan in September 1945. However, wars have always occurred throughout human history, and in terms of the percentages of the world population that have been killed during such wars, the percentages were much greater in the past. For example, it is estimated that the Mongol conquests in the 13th century resulted in the deaths of about 11% of the world population, and as high as 60 million people in Eurasia. The Hundred Years' Wars between England and France resulted in the killing of half the population of France and also resulted in a pandemic which killed up to an estimated 200 million. WWI by comparison, when the world population was much higher, has an estimated 20 million deaths of soldiers and civilians, followed by another 50 million deaths caused by the 'Spanish Flu' which began and was spreading during the war. Thanks to science, the current number of Covid-19 deaths, world-wide, is only 6,487,445. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries I hope I have demolished this silly idea that Science is not the greatest boon to humanity. ????

I'll advise you how you can respond. Use your imagination and give me some examples of concepts that you think I might believe in, that can't be validated by science. I can't think of any, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you can enlighten me by providing an example of a belief I hold, that I missed. ????

This is an excellent example of the imprecision in the use of common words. I'm sure you've heard the expression, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. This is especially true for the perception of colour, which is always in the eye of the beholder. All objects absorb and reflect certain 'wave/particles' of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, of which light is a part. Each clolour is associated with a specific wave length, ranging from the human experience of 'red', which is associated with a comparatively long wave, to violet, which is associated with a comparatively short wave, within the visible spectrum. Most people would agree that a leaf is green. However, in reality the leaf has no colour. The leaf simply reflects a particular wave length of light which produces a sensation in the human mind that we describe as 'green'. The sky appears blue during the day when the sun is higher in the sky because the shorter wavelenths of light get scattered the most by the air molecules. However, when the sun is low on the horizon, the light takes a longer path through the atmosphere to the observer, and much of the shorter waves are scattered out of sight, resulting in the longer waves, which we experience as red and orange, becoming more prominent. Got it? ????

I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., which is why I am an Atheist. However, there are certain basic issues that don't require scientific confirmation. For example, humans have understood for ages, before the scientific method evolved, that sticking one's hand in a fire would cause extreme pain and damage. There are many other examples, such as jumping off a tall cliff onto the hard ground below, as opposed to jumping onto an ocean or lake. "My point is that everyone harbours as-yet-unproven-by-science beliefs about most everything; with many of those beliefs personally accepted as being true." Not everyone. "Would you agree that there are things you say you believe you know for sure?" I'm not sure 'believe' is the best word. I'd say there are things that I accept are true, with a high level of confidence. For example, if I were to drink a whole 750 ml bottle of whisky, I'm very confident I would get drunk. However, I wouldn't be totally, 100% sure, because there's a remote possibility that the bottle of whisky could be a fake with a very low alcohol content. ????

The concepts of 'reason' and 'purpose' are human constructs and thought processes. We use our capacity for 'reason' to determine what was the cause of an accident, for example, or the causes of 'changes in climate'. 'Purpose' is a quality that is fundamental to all life, even plants and trees.. The inanimate asteroid that hit the Earth about 65 million years ago and destroyed the dinosaurs, according to the application of science and reason, did not have a purpose. An asteroid is not a living organism. Regarding your example of the car sliding on an icy road into another car. The application of reason determines that the cause of the accident was a patch of ice on the road which prevented the brakes from being effective.. Perhaps the car in front had stopped at traffic lights and the car behind was going too fast for the conditions and wasn't able to stop quickly enough because of the ice. However, accidents have a cause, but not a purpose. If you want to attribute a purpose to the accident then you would have to describe it as an 'apparent' accident that was done intentionally. Perhaps the driver of the car behind was following the car in front and intended to smash into the car, using the icy road as an excuse.

Of course it's difficult. The fundamental principle is that every effect has a cause, but it's never just one cause that's involved. There's a continuous flow of interacting causes and effects, and the further back in time you go, to analyse the cause of a particular event, the more related causes you discover. Consider a simple example of a car accident. An inquiry concludes that the driver fell asleep at the wheel. That's the cause of the accident. But why did the driver fall asleep? An inquiry concludes that he went to bed late the previous night, did not sleep well, and had to get up early. But why did he go to bed late, and have to get up early, and why did he not sleep well? An inquiry concludes that he'd had a late-night party, with quite a lot of drinking, which affected his sleeping, and he had to get up early to attend a work project he had signed up to. But why did he have a late-night party, and why did he sgn up to a work project that began so early in the day? An inquiry concludes that he was celebrating the day he got married to his wife, and the contract he signed up to was a well-paid job and he needed the money. But why did he marry the lady who is now his wife? Do you get the drift? If we keep going back in time to discover all the causes, we'll get to the point of asking why the driver, who fell asleep at the wheel, was born. An inquiry might reveal that he was born 'accidentally' because his father was wearing an inadequate condom that didn't do its job. If the condom had not been faulty, the driver would not have been born and the accident would not have occurred. If we go back further, we could then ask, 'What were the causes of the faulty condom?' Perhaps a factory worker had not done his job properly and a batch of leaking condoms was sent to the market. But why did the factory worker not do hid job properly, and why were the defects in the condom not discovered? And so on, and so on. Is it not plausible that the origins of life could have first appeared in a very complex and changing environment, sometimes called a soupy sea, with trillions of various molecules and chemicals bumping into each other during a period of millions of years?

Where do you get the assumption that some people think that everything is random? As I've tried to explain before, randomness, chance, and accidents do occur. They are a part of human reality. It would be foolish to deny that. However, if everything were to happen randomly it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to survive. Our civilzations progress and develop through a process of reducing randomness by understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the forces involved in any outcome. However, many processes are so complex, involving so many interacting forces, it's impossible to have complete control or make an accurate prediction, and the best we can do is calculate a 'percentage chance' of a particular event occurring. An example would be the weather forecast. Another example would be the tossing of a coin and predicting whether is would land heads-up, or tails-up. We can calculate the chance of heads or tails is 50% either way because we understand there are only two possible outcomes. If we were to create a situation where we could control every force that is applied to the coin, from its initial flipping to the turbulence of the air as the coin smashes through billions of molecules, then we could predict with certainty whether the coin would land heads-up or tails-up, with each flip. As regards 'purpose', I can appreciate that some individuals might 'feel' there is no purpose in life, because they are depressed, and suffering, and think they have insurmountable problems. However, human activity in general is full of a multitude of purposes at various levels. If one is referring to the fundamental purpose of all life, then the obvious answer is 'reproduction'. The quality of 'reproduction' is what distinguishes life from inanimate matter. 'Moral behaviour' is an attempt to reduce the suffering and conflict which results from the competitive actions which are instincively involved in the general purpose of reproduction. Got it? ????

"Ask yourself how much you think you know to be true but it "just ain't so." How convinced are you that everything you think you know is indeed true? " As I've tried to explain, I believe in the 'Methodology of Science' which begins with a Hypothesis and can gradually develop into a Theory, if and when calculations and sound experiments, which must also allow a falsification process, eventually support the Hypothesis. Both Hypotheses and Theories can be shown to be wrong as new evidence and data become available, so it's quite possible I might be wrong about many issues. However, I tend not to change my mind until I become aware of new evidence that meets my own standards, based on my own interpretation of the 'Methodology of Science'. Regarding 'how much I know', I accept that I know very, very, very little, compared to the whole of human knowledge, and the whole of human knowledge is very, very little compared to what remains to be known. Okay? ????